The argument was that if both Genesis 1 and John 1 are accounts of creation or "the beginning," written by the same Author, then you could reasonably use one to explain the other.

The problem is that the authorship cannot be demonstrated to be the same. Furthermore, John 1 is much more recent than the book of Genesis, and could have been deliberately written to parallel Genesis (a scripture known both in Israel and also in Greece in the form of the Septuagint).

You can't prove one part of the bible by referring to another part. Especially if the person who wrote the later part was just trying to make the earlier part seem true!

If the first chapter of a story predicts that a man will ride on a black and white donkey, you cannot cite the fifth chapter (where the man is described as riding a black and white donkey) as proof of the first chapter. The person who wrote Ch.5, wanting to make Ch. 1 into a valid prophecy, would be a fool to write that the man rode a brown camel or a white horse, even if it was the case.

Muslims show that the Quran is true by the same method many Christians use to prove the bible is true--by pointing to several passages in the Quran that say "these words are true." Would any Christians buy that as acceptable evidence?

Very true, and I never claimed to prove, only to explain my interpretation of Genesis 1:3 in light of other parts of the Bible.

Speaking of proof, if p->q, q doesn't prove p. That's to say, none of us have proven anything in this thread (as far as I can tell). We have all given logically consistent statements that are, to this point, without proof, myself included.

Quote

John 1 is much more recent than the book of Genesis, and could have been deliberately written to parallel Genesis

Rephrased: if someone (even an ordinary human) deliberately parallels Genesis while writing John, then they would write John after Genesis. That's logical. So is "if God wanted to reveal, in John, more details of what He had previously written in Genesis , He would write John after Genesis." But we've proven neither premise true/false.

Quote

the introduction to John which is a misunderstanding of the text by a later author

Rephrased: if a later author was simply misunderstanding Genesis, they may write something similar later in time. That's logical. So is "if God was correctly clarifying Genesis, He may write something similar later in time."

Quote

The stories were invented by polytheistic religions thousands of years before Yahweh himself was invented

Rephrased: if Moses (or someone) invented God after getting the idea from polytheistic religions, then he would have written Genesis after those religions existed. Logical. So is "If God created the world as described in Genesis, many people may have told semi-true stories about it and even based religions after what they understood of it before God told Moses a true account and Moses wrote it down."

Ok, enough of that, you all get the point (and perhaps you always did, but I just wanted to be extra clear that none of us were actually proving anything thus far, just sharing a different potential premise).

Quote

Let's look at what it says literally from the original Hebrew. Genesis 1:1 When the gods (Elohim, plural) began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and darkness was (previously) upon the face of the deep, and wind moved (previously) over the face of the waters. Then.... (the creation began).

I'll admit I'm no expert in Hebrew, but I've heard that Hebrew is a subtle language with far fewer words than English. Therefore, one word can mean two fairly different things, depending on context, etc. (such as the word for wind also meaning spirit, as in other places like Ezekiel 37). Also, the same verb can have a different tense (past vs past perfect vs pluperfect- but language really isn't my strongest area) depending on context. But, even still, I will accept your translation and (try to) argue that it is not inconsistent with either what I asserted or the following verses. I have no problem with a plural word for God (as i already agreed that 1:26 is plural and could suggest a triune God). The rest just says that, before God created light (or all the other items to follow), there was darkness (which seems obvious) and that there was water and that there was wind. The text doesn't say God DIDN'T create the water or the wind, just that it was there before God created light etc. If there is water (with a surface), there could be water vapor (a gas). If there is gas, and any differences in pressure, there could be wind. Genesis doesn't specifically tell about God creating Satan and the angels, but I believe He did.

I really do learn from everyone when I discuss these topics with you. I hope some of you have at least gained something valuable from what I've had to say.

Um. Why would a god need to clarify anything? Wouldn't a god know how to explain stuff the right way the first time? It seems just a bit suspicious that god needed editors, just like a regular old human writer making sh!t up that has to be patched over later......

He doesn't need to clarify, but He chooses to. He chose to wait to reveal the mystery of Jesus, His Son, until 2000 ish years ago. What if that is exactly the "right way?" I've heard people suggest that that exact period and location in history was perfect time for a revolution/movement like Christianity to spread, as it seems God intended ("go and make disciples of all nations"). Sorry that I don't have a reference or more specific explanation for that (history isn't my strong point either).

He doesn't need to clarify, but He chooses to. He chose to wait to reveal the mystery of Jesus, His Son, until 2000 ish years ago. What if that is exactly the "right way?" I've heard people suggest that that exact period and location in history was perfect time for a revolution/movement like Christianity to spread, as it seems God intended ("go and make disciples of all nations"). Sorry that I don't have a reference or more specific explanation for that (history isn't my strong point either).

That is a very strange thing to assert. Wouldn't right now, with the internet, widespread literacy and long life spans, be a much, much better time to start a religion?

At the time in history when Christianity began, most people were illiterate polytheistic pagans who lived to about 40 years of age, in isolated subsistence farming communities ruled by a handful of fairly brutal empires. Christianity took centuries to spread by slow, painful word of mouth until one of those brutal empires (Roman) adopted it and forced it onto the European people. The Romans knocked the bible together by committee, selecting the scraps of manuscripts that made the most political sense, and persecuted anyone who disputed the final draft.

Can you say "state religion"? As in no choice if you wanted to survive?

Even with all that, it took several more centuries, the Inquisition, the Crusades and a few more brutal empires (like the Spanish and Portuguese) for the religion to spread to "all nations". Mainly this took the form of brutal torture and massacres, enslaving surviving native populations and again, forcing them to adopt the faith en masse.

A conservative time frame for Christianity to reach every continent and become a majority faith would be 1500 years. I would argue that the arrival of Christianity slowed social progress in much of the world, due the aforementioned torture, slavery and massacres, plus the persecution of scientists and people of different beliefs.

Islam spread much farther in way less time than Christianity. Within 500 years of the death of Muhammed, Islam was the predominant faith from Spain to India, and within a few more centuries had reached Indonesia and the coastal states of Africa. Medieval Islam was also based on slavery and oppression but was still way more advanced socially and scientifically than medieval Christianity. The Muslim empires allowed people to practice other Abrahamic religions, and encouraged newfangled practices like trash removal, street lights, and bathing with soap.

Hinduism is over twice as old as Christianity, and is so well-entrenched in south Asia that even Islam could not dislodge it. And after 300 years of proselytizing by British missionaries, only 2% of the 1 billion+ people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is Christian. China and Japan have proven equally resistant to Christianity, preferring atheism, Buddhism, and respecting their own ancestors over Jesus.

I think a bit of history might help you put your religion into a better world perspective.

It really is your fault for keep going back to a bad movie that has been played and replayed time and time again asking for answers to something that has very little truths for your present day existence. You cannot understand things that was written for a human mindset 2000+ years ago, and pretending that you do even though so many have updated it, just shows how seriously ill you are. Ground hog day or what?? Why do you keep doing it to yourself? There is no way any of this will enhance your life so that you can know God.

Ask a basic question... like -- "Who am I"? Then see the BS you and others produce. Then evolve from the BS to make sure you have only truths left. Do some real science of the self you know or at least should know.

It really is your fault for keep going back to a bad movie that has been played and replayed time and time again asking for answers to something that has very little truths for your present day existence. You cannot understand things that was written for a human mindset 2000+ years ago, and pretending that you do even though so many have updated it, just shows how seriously ill you are. Ground hog day or what?? Why do you keep doing it to yourself? There is no way any of this will enhance your life so that you can know God.

Ask a basic question... like -- "Who am I"? Then see the BS you and others produce. Then evolve from the BS to make sure you have only truths left. Do some real science of the self you know or at least should know.

The people who wrote this were anthropomorphizing a being in order to put it in terms that they could understand, IE: A man who speaks and acts as we do, and in a format that was easy to transmit. IE: A story.

Logged

"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

The people who wrote this were anthropomorphizing a being in order to put it in terms that they could understand, IE: A man who speaks and acts as we do, and in a format that was easy to transmit. IE: A story.

Now that you put the bible in the trash, how do you say that a "god" made the world?

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

The people who wrote this were anthropomorphizing a being in order to put it in terms that they could understand, IE: A man who speaks and acts as we do, and in a format that was easy to transmit. IE: A story.

Now that you put the bible in the trash, how do you say that a "god" made the world?

I didn't say that a god made the world, and I didn't put the bible in the trash, I answered the question that was asked in the thread.

Logged

"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

You can't prove one part of the bible by referring to another part. Especially if the person who wrote the later part was just trying to make the earlier part seem true!

This is not actually a sound argument. The Bible is not one source. It's a collection of different sources. It would be like collecting all the books on one subject then saying nothing inside that book can be used to prove the subject.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

The people who wrote this were anthropomorphizing a being in order to put it in terms that they could understand, IE: A man who speaks and acts as we do, and in a format that was easy to transmit. IE: A story.

Now that you put the bible in the trash, how do you say that a "god" made the world?

I didn't say that a god made the world, and I didn't put the bible in the trash, I answered the question that was asked in the thread.

But you are not letting go of the belief that a god could be the cause.

And yes, you did trash it. You just said God DID NOT say the word, and that the bible is just a way to storytell. Meaning we can say that any event in it was also similarly made up to tell a story.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

The people who wrote this were anthropomorphizing a being in order to put it in terms that they could understand, IE: A man who speaks and acts as we do, and in a format that was easy to transmit. IE: A story.

Now that you put the bible in the trash, how do you say that a "god" made the world?

I didn't say that a god made the world, and I didn't put the bible in the trash, I answered the question that was asked in the thread.

But you are not letting go of the belief that a god could be the cause.

And yes, you did trash it. You just said God DID NOT say the word, and that the bible is just a way to storytell. Meaning we can say that any event in it was also similarly made up to tell a story.

1. This has nothing to do with me or my beliefs, there was a question asked in this thread and I answered it. Nothing in this thread addressed weather I should or shouldn't believe what I believe, or even what I believed. the question was "Who was God talking to and why did he speak?" which I answered.

2. I said that story and myth were the means by which that culture transmitted ideas, I didn't say anything about the validity of the ideas that those stories are meant to represent, that is immaterial, this thread isn't about their validity.

Logged

"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

You can't prove one part of the bible by referring to another part. Especially if the person who wrote the later part was just trying to make the earlier part seem true!

This is not actually a sound argument. The Bible is not one source. It's a collection of different sources. It would be like collecting all the books on one subject then saying nothing inside that book can be used to prove the subject.

Pretty piss poor way for an Omniscient being to communicate. Through different sources, that conflict with each other. Except when they are supporting it. Funny how much that matches up with shared universe fiction like comic books or the Wildcard series. If there was some sort of way we could distinguish true from false..I don't know, lets call it evidence.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Pretty piss poor way for an Omniscient being to communicate. Through different sources, that conflict with each other. Except when they are supporting it. Funny how much that matches up with shared universe fiction like comic books or the Wildcard series. If there was some sort of way we could distinguish true from false..I don't know, lets call it evidence.

This doesn't refute what I said.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Pretty piss poor way for an Omniscient being to communicate. Through different sources, that conflict with each other. Except when they are supporting it. Funny how much that matches up with shared universe fiction like comic books or the Wildcard series. If there was some sort of way we could distinguish true from false..I don't know, lets call it evidence.

This doesn't refute what I said.

Except for the part where you don't have any evidence, as opposed to a collection of books on any of the sciences. The only thing that would be the equivalent is literary analysis. Very helpful on debating fiction. For describing the real world? Not so much.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Instead of the bible, I suggest the 50+books in the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett. Much better written, far more internally consistent and at least as useful.

Better written yes, internally consistent yes...but study of the Bible is useful as it is the primary set of myths that were believed in by the credulous for over a thousand years. Much of our expressions and literary symbolism has been effected by it. So, sorry to say that study of the Bible, while less entertaining is more useful, if you study it as mythology. However, if you study it as if it was history and a description of the Universe, since it is dead wrong it becomes anti useful or better say an impediment to knowledge as it just plain is not true.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Pretty piss poor way for an Omniscient being to communicate. Through different sources, that conflict with each other. Except when they are supporting it. Funny how much that matches up with shared universe fiction like comic books or the Wildcard series. If there was some sort of way we could distinguish true from false..I don't know, lets call it evidence.

This doesn't refute what I said.

Except for the part where you don't have any evidence, as opposed to a collection of books on any of the sciences. The only thing that would be the equivalent is literary analysis. Very helpful on debating fiction. For describing the real world? Not so much.

Stating what others have said, that there is no evidence, does not make it true. Calling people credulous doesn't make it true either.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

This is not actually a sound argument. The Bible is not one source. It's a collection of different sources. It would be like collecting all the books on one subject then saying nothing inside that book can be used to prove the subject.

It depends on what people are claiming about the collection of books, why the books were written, and how they were assembled.